Why... ?

[Tawhano]

Duh... some of the Bible... some stories, some laws, some histories are illogical and just plain wrong. NOT ALL OF IT.

The problem being that you can’t logically dispute any of them except to say you don’t believe them. You have not presented any substantial evidence to back your claim up; not one.

Yeah, you aren't a fundamentalist...

The fact is you have no idea what I believe so how did you come to this conclusion? The answer is simple; through prejudice and ignorance. Actually I believe some of the things you do so I guess that makes you a fundamentalist too eh?

You want support and back up for my claims, then investigate them yourself.

I see, you make unsubstantiated claims and the onus is on me to prove you wrong eh? That’s not how rational debate works.

When I ahve selected one of several sites that agree with me, all I get is :that's only one site and you probably wrote it yourself".

You crack me up. That web site had absolutely no evidence for its claims (just like you). It was full of unsubstantiated claims without one single source to provide back it up (just like you). It simply stated that everybody else was wrong and the author of the web site is right without one shred of evidence (just like you). Yep, I think it is clear why I questioned whether the site was written by you. You obviously have no idea what makes a good internet resource to back up your claims.

 

[KCDAD]

Logically? You apparently don't know what that word means. I have logically shown the Joshua story of the sun stopping in the sky is IMPOSSIBLE and therefore FALSE. I have shown in other cases that the creation story in Genesis is inconsistent, incoherent and IMPOSSIBLE and therefore is also FALSE. Other stories like David's census, Solomon's stables, Jesus' birth, the resurrection and ascension, Jonah and Noah all have inconsistencies, incoherencies and IMPOSSIBILITIES and are therefore not literal, factual accounts of real events either.
In the world of logic, if something is impossible, it is not possible and therefore a statement describing something that is impossible is a false statement.
(I can read your mind: Nothing is impossible with God.

That's a very nice bedtime story.
Show me how God can create man before the animals and animals before woman in Genesis 2 and according to Genesis 1 the animals were created on days 4 and 5 and man and woman were both created on day 6. Show me how that God can do that IMPOSSIBLE feat.)

 

[Tawhano]

Logically? You apparently don't know what that word means. I have logically shown the Joshua story of the sun stopping in the sky is IMPOSSIBLE and therefore FALSE.

It is you that doesn’t know the meaning of the word logical. You have consistently demonstrated your ignorance and arrogance in discussing this topic. You have provided nothing to back up a single thing you have proposed.

In the world of logic, if something is impossible, it is not possible and therefore a statement describing something that is impossible is a false statement.

You can not nor have you demonstrated that something, anything at all, is not possible. You simply said it wasn’t and left it at that.

I can read your mind: Nothing is impossible with God.

That's a very nice bedtime story.

You have absolutely no concept of God do you? The real bedtime story is the sad one of people who create gods in their own image; an impotent god with limited abilities governed by man’s imagination.

Show me how God can create man before the animals and animals before woman in Genesis 2 and according to Genesis 1 the animals were created on days 4 and 5 and man and woman were both created on day 6.

I look at the creation story a lot different than most religions teach. God ended the creation process in verse 2 of Genesis 2. After that the account isn’t about creation but the process of that creation.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

 

[artybloke]

Certain things are impossible because they do not fit reality as we observe. The Genesis story is scientifically impossible according to all the scientific knowledge we have currently. Not just some of it, all of it.

Therefore, if it is still to mean anything to the 21st century, a literalistic reading is pointless. It makes the whole of religion a laughing-stock to continue to believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A literalistic reading of the Bible makes the whole thing irrelevant and only believe to those benighted souls who refuse to live in the real world.

 

[KCDAD]

I look at the creation story a lot different than most religions teach. God ended the creation process in verse 2 of Genesis 2. After that the account isn’t about creation but the process of that creation.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

And you think I am illogical?
God ended the process in verse two and the rest of the story is about the process?

It is not about the creation but about the process of creation? Did you mean "progress"?

What language are you trying to communicate in?

 

[KCDAD]

Certain things are impossible because they do not fit reality as we observe. The Genesis story is scientifically impossible according to all the scientific knowledge we have currently. Not just some of it, all of it.

Therefore, if it is still to mean anything to the 21st century, a literalistic reading is pointless. It makes the whole of religion a laughing-stock to continue to believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A literalistic reading of the Bible makes the whole thing irrelevant and only believe to those benighted souls who refuse to live in the real world.

Absolutely correct, but also, it is impossible by any possible (reasonable) understanding of an orderly, consistent God.

 

[CShephard53]

Certain things are impossible because they do not fit reality as we observe. The Genesis story is scientifically impossible according to all the scientific knowledge we have currently. Not just some of it, all of it.

Therefore, if it is still to mean anything to the 21st century, a literalistic reading is pointless. It makes the whole of religion a laughing-stock to continue to believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A literalistic reading of the Bible makes the whole thing irrelevant and only believe to those benighted souls who refuse to live in the real world.

Again, arty, do you have a single bit of evidence for any of your claims? I've called you on this in other thread and presented evidence against your claims as well, yet you still only make more claims about it.

 

[Tawhano]

The Genesis story is scientifically impossible according to all the scientific knowledge we have currently. Not just some of it, all of it.

Source please.

 

[Tawhano]

It is not about the creation but about the process of creation? Did you mean "progress"?

What language are you trying to communicate in?

Actually I meant procession. So this is all you have eh? Now you are going to center in on typos. That is absolutely pathetic. You had nothing when you started and you have nothing now.

 

[KCDAD]

Source please.

Reality. Check it out sometime.

Man is not made of dust or dirt.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-12/912530774.En.r.html
http://www.godonthe.net/dictionary/d.html
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dirt

IF God created man in less than a day, there must be a ideal or model of what man created as... at this point of creation man would have been so many "years old" as far as maturity (child, teen, young adult, mature adult, etc). he would have been a perfect creature so would represent a "perfect" height, weight etc. He would have had to have been created with fully functioning muscles, organs and nervous system. He would have been created with the ability to use language, recognize objects and have imprinted memories of them... somethings that we know are learned.
This "ideal" man would have been a certain color, have a certain type of hair (straight or curly), have a certain body type; muscular, lanky. Did he have facial hair? Did he have any hair at all?
And there is the problem of women. Was she created before, after or during her menses? Did she have breasts?
Did Adam have testicles? Why? There was no need for them before Eve was created... or was there? How about ALL of the secondary sex characteristics? Were they created with them or did they develop later? (Lower voice, pubic hair, broadened shoulders and/or hips)

There are many more questions than answers in literalist theology. You should provide sources for your irrational beliefs.

 

[KCDAD]

Actually I meant procession. So this is all you have eh? Now you are going to center in on typos. That is absolutely pathetic. You had nothing when you started and you have nothing now.

That isn't all I have, I just needed to understand what you were saying.

You seem to be indicating that God finished with creating at the beginning of Genesis 2. Is that what you meant to imply? Everything that occurs afterwards is like the wake of a boat passing.... the result of an action, not new action. Is that right?

 

[CShephard53]

Reality. Check it out sometime.

Man is not made of dust or dirt.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-12/912530774.En.r.html
http://www.godonthe.net/dictionary/d.html
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dirt

IF God created man in less than a day, there must be a ideal or model of what man created as... at this point of creation man would have been so many "years old" as far as maturity (child, teen, young adult, mature adult, etc). he would have been a perfect creature so would represent a "perfect" height, weight etc. He would have had to have been created with fully functioning muscles, organs and nervous system. He would have been created with the ability to use language, recognize objects and have imprinted memories of them... somethings that we know are learned.
This "ideal" man would have been a certain color, have a certain type of hair (straight or curly), have a certain body type; muscular, lanky. Did he have facial hair? Did he have any hair at all?
And there is the problem of women. Was she created before, after or during her menses? Did she have breasts?
Did Adam have testicles? Why? There was no need for them before Eve was created... or was there? How about ALL of the secondary sex characteristics? Were they created with them or did they develop later? (Lower voice, pubic hair, broadened shoulders and/or hips)

There are many more questions than answers in literalist theology. You should provide sources for your irrational beliefs.

First, your questions mean nothing. They are simply wonderings that want God to tell us specifics, which happen when we get to heaven. And anyway, it ignores 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Second, about your 'sources':
The first, about dust, doesn't mean anything, it simply goes on and on about dust, and is also written by a random person- we don't know if they're a scholar or where they're getting their info, by looking at the site. There are no annotations or sources listed.

The second is a Bible dictionary, which again, has no sources to it. There is not one iota of where they got their info, they claim it's a Bible dictionary and that's about it.

The third is yet another dictionary, and lists a bunch of English definitions. So tell me, since the Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, and a smattering of Aramaic, why on earth would we put any stock in English definitions on the word 'dirt', and how do you expect that to prove anything?

The sources you've put forth are effectively useless, seeing as man was made from dust, not made of dust.

 

[Tawhano]

Reality. Check it out sometime.

Yeah right, you have demonstrated that your reality is based on nothing but your own views of what reality is with nothing to support your views and you want to counsel me on checking out reality?

Man is not made of dust or dirt.

I realize that, so what is your point? You aren’t debating me; in fact you haven’t been debating me from the beginning. You have the opposition side already implanted in your head and you are debating that not me. You have absolutely no idea how I interpret the scripture that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. In short you create a strawman argument and debate that. A strawman is a fallacy, this is all you have.

There are many more questions than answers in literalist theology. You should provide sources for your irrational beliefs.

And I said I supported the literalist theology where? You should pay attention to what it is I am saying and stop this ignorance of placing words into my mouth.

That isn't all I have, I just needed to understand what you were saying.

No it is all you have. You have consistently ignored what I say and instead put your own views of what it is you want to debate in place of mine. You have nothing so you make up stuff and attribute it to me and then pretend you have some sort of skills in logical reasoning.

You seem to be indicating that God finished with creating at the beginning of Genesis 2. Is that what you meant to imply?

What is your problem? Do you have absolutely no communication skills at all? What did I say? God ended the creation process in verse 2 of Genesis 2. Can you not decipher what that is meant to say?

Everything that occurs afterwards is like the wake of a boat passing.... the result of an action, not new action. Is that right?

No it is not right. I understand what it is you are trying to do. You have been exposed as having no credibility whatsoever and now you want to shift the onus of you proving what you say to me proving what you want me to say. Not going to happen. Until you come up with something other than your own arrogant opinion I will not be playing this game with you. Put up or shut up.

 

[KCDAD]

First, your questions mean nothing. They are simply wonderings that want God to tell us specifics, which happen when we get to heaven. And anyway, it ignores 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Second, about your 'sources':
The first, about dust, doesn't mean anything, it simply goes on and on about dust, and is also written by a random person- we don't know if they're a scholar or where they're getting their info, by looking at the site. There are no annotations or sources listed.

The second is a Bible dictionary, which again, has no sources to it. There is not one iota of where they got their info, they claim it's a Bible dictionary and that's about it.

The third is yet another dictionary, and lists a bunch of English definitions. So tell me, since the Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, and a smattering of Aramaic, why on earth would we put any stock in English definitions on the word 'dirt', and how do you expect that to prove anything?

The sources you've put forth are effectively useless, seeing as man was made from dust, not made of dust.

Sure. Just dismiss everything becaue you don't agree with it. How clever.
Why don't you instead tell me the distinction between "from dust" and "of dust"?

 

[KCDAD]

Yeah right, you have demonstrated that your reality is based on nothing but your own views of what reality is with nothing to support your views and you want to counsel me on checking out reality?

I realize that, so what is your point? You aren’t debating me; in fact you haven’t been debating me from the beginning. You have the opposition side already implanted in your head and you are debating that not me. You have absolutely no idea how I interpret the scripture that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. In short you create a strawman argument and debate that. A strawman is a fallacy, this is all you have.

And I said I supported the literalist theology where? You should pay attention to what it is I am saying and stop this ignorance of placing words into my mouth.

No it is all you have. You have consistently ignored what I say and instead put your own views of what it is you want to debate in place of mine. You have nothing so you make up stuff and attribute it to me and then pretend you have some sort of skills in logical reasoning.

What is your problem? Do you have absolutely no communication skills at all? What did I say? God ended the creation process in verse 2 of Genesis 2. Can you not decipher what that is meant to say?

No it is not right. I understand what it is you are trying to do. You have been exposed as having no credibility whatsoever and now you want to shift the onus of you proving what you say to me proving what you want me to say. Not going to happen. Until you come up with something other than your own arrogant opinion I will not be playing this game with you. Put up or shut up.

What is your reality based upon if not your own views?

So attack the form of the argument and not the argument itself... talk about fallacies.

I haven't ignored anything you said. You have not stated anything of relevence. Make statement about the topic and give me the opportunity to ignore it.

Verse two is not the beginning of the chapter... which, by the way, does not exist in the Hebrew (it is freely connected verse, no chapter breaks) Again you make not statment, just address the form of the discussion. Is it true that you implied God is finished creating after verse 2 of Chapter 2 in Genesis?

Ok. Itis not true. So what is true? Can you make a positive statement at all about what you interpret it mean? Are you just gonna be "Mary Mary quite contrary" and nitpick everything without making an affirmative statement?

Take a stand. Declare your belief.

 

[Tawhano]

Sure. Just dismiss everything becaue you don't agree with it. How clever.

Have you heard the cliché about practice what you preach? You have been doing exactly what you accuse another of doing from the very beginning. Please explain to me why it is okay for you to do that but not another.

I haven't ignored anything you said. You have not stated anything of relevence. Make statement about the topic and give me the opportunity to ignore it.

Exactly, I haven’t stated anything about my beliefs. My entire position has been that you made unsubstantiated comments and tried to pass them off as logical and truth. This is what I have been debating. This is the topic I have been discussing. Your arrogant view that you are right and everyone else is wrong is illogical and erroneous because you refuse to back anything up that you say with anything except your opinion. Opinions are fine; nothing wrong with having your opinions on something. The problem comes from you passing off your opinions as facts.

So explain to me how you are going to debate my beliefs or label me as a fundamentalist or declare my views as being literalist theology. You can’t because you don’t know what I believe and you never will because we can’t get pass the first hurdle. The hurdle of your arrogant and erroneous attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong because you say so.

 

[Tawhano]

You posted misinformation that “El in the plural form of Elohim was the name of the Babylonian Supreme God...” and I asked for a source. You never gave me one. Where is your evidence that your comment is even remotely credible?

If you are unable to provide one credible evidence for your remark then I have to conclude it was a false statement. This is the logical thing for me to do.

There are many more questions than answers in literalist theology. You should provide sources for your irrational beliefs.

Please provide the comments that I made that are in any way associated with literalist theology and what “irrational beliefs” you think I have.

That is the problem you fundamentalists have... all or nothing.

Please provide the evidence that I am a fundamentalist.

Failing to answer the above questions is evidence to me that you are not able to discuss anything in a logical and reasonable manner. This is the logical thing for me to do.

Hah! And you said I didn’t understand what logical meant.

 

[CShephard53]

Sure. Just dismiss everything becaue you don't agree with it. How clever.
Why don't you instead tell me the distinction between "from dust" and "of dust"?

Distinction:
When you make a car, and some of it is steel, you say it is made from steel, not that it is made of steel because steel is not all the car is made of. I'm surprised you wouldn't see it.

You're accusing me of making the argument you've been making all along- that evidence is only acceptable if you accept it. Why?

 

[KCDAD]

Have you heard the cliché about practice what you preach? You have been doing exactly what you accuse another of doing from the very beginning. Please explain to me why it is okay for you to do that but not another.

Exactly, I haven’t stated anything about my beliefs. My entire position has been that you made unsubstantiated comments and tried to pass them off as logical and truth. This is what I have been debating. This is the topic I have been discussing. Your arrogant view that you are right and everyone else is wrong is illogical and erroneous because you refuse to back anything up that you say with anything except your opinion. Opinions are fine; nothing wrong with having your opinions on something. The problem comes from you passing off your opinions as facts.

So explain to me how you are going to debate my beliefs or label me as a fundamentalist or declare my views as being literalist theology. You can’t because you don’t know what I believe and you never will because we can’t get pass the first hurdle. The hurdle of your arrogant and erroneous attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong because you say so.

Anger management anyone? I have seen this much name calling since the Democratic debate. You keep demanding proof or evidence or sources for my statements.... why? Do you disagree with them? Do they anger you? Do you have no reasonable response to them of your own?
If you disagree with them, tell me how and why... you be the "better man" and provide sources to prove me wrong. Until then, or at least until you can disagree with anything I wrote, I will stand by true statements.

 

[KCDAD]

You posted misinformation that “El in the plural form of Elohim was the name of the Babylonian Supreme God...” and I asked for a source. You never gave me one. Where is your evidence that your comment is even remotely credible?

If you are unable to provide one credible evidence for your remark then I have to conclude it was a false statement. This is the logical thing for me to do.

Please provide the comments that I made that are in any way associated with literalist theology and what “irrational beliefs” you think I have.

Please provide the evidence that I am a fundamentalist.

Failing to answer the above questions is evidence to me that you are not able to discuss anything in a logical and reasonable manner. This is the logical thing for me to do.

Hah! And you said I didn’t understand what logical meant.

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-def.htm

Mesopotamian... not Babylonian... wow, huge... I mean huge mistake.
Oh wait... it is the same area, isn't it?